JUDGMENT Per: MIHIR KUMAR JHA, J. This appeal has been filed by the sole appellant Guru Prasad Singh, who has been convicted under section 396 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life by the impugned judgment dated 19.4.1990 passed by the 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, West Champaran, Bettiah in S.Tr. No. 271 of 1982 arising out of Semra P.S. Case No. 2/1982. 2. The prosecution case as may be culled out from the version of the informant Ram Chandra Yadav (P.W.8) in nut shell is that in the night of 19/20th July, 1982 a dacoity was committed in the house of his father Panchu Yadav (P.W.7) and in course of such dacoity while Panchu Yadav was severely assaulted, his son Bishwanath Yadav was also done to death by the miscreants. Though none has been named in the fardbeyan of the informant as the members of the dacoits but it has been claimed that the dacoits themselves were flashing torch light and had also put fire in the straw stored in the house of Panchu Yadav and as such, the dacoits who were given their description by physical feature could be identified. It is also claimed by the informant that the gang of dacoits consisting of 15-16 persons, having committed the dacoity and also killing Bishwanath Yadav and injuring Panchu Yadav in course of such dacoity had fled away from the occurrence after arrival of the villagers whereafter when the aforesaid Bishwanath Yadav in an injured condition was being removed to the hospital, he had succumbed to his injuries in the way. 3. Thus, this First Information Report lodged under section 396 I.P.C. against unknown persons on the version of the informant had led to institution of Semra P.S. Case No. 2/1982 and the police in course of investigation having taken aid of adjacent police station in Khadda Police Station, in the State of U.P., had collected proof as with regard to involvement of the appellant and four others, namely, Ramdhani Yadav, Ranjan Kumar Gupta, Mahendra Nath Pandey and Ramakant Kewat (since dead) and having found sufficient materials as with regard to their involvement in the occurrence in question had filed charge sheet on the basis of Test Identification Parade (in short T.I.P.) conducted on 20.10.1982. All of them were subsequently put on trial and by the impugned judgment while remaining co-accused, namely, Ramdhani Yadav, Ranjan Kumar Gupta and Mahendra Nath Pandey have been acquitted on the ground of disbelieving their identification in the T.I.P., the sole appellant has been convicted on an additional ground of recovery of his gun licence. 4. Assailing the impugned judgment Mr. Onkar Nath, learned counsel appearing as Amicus Curiae, has submitted that once the trial court had disbelieved identification of the co-accused on the basis of tainted T.I.P., there was no reason for the appellant to have not been given the same benefit. In this regard he has also criticized the impugned judgment by taking a specific plea that mere recovery of gun licence of the appellant cannot be used as a circumstance for also holding that the appellant was one of the members of dacoit which had committed the occurrence in question. He has also in this regard submitted that when the Investigating Officer himself did not recover the gun licence, the reliance placed by him on the version of P.W.4 Rudal Yadav and P.W.5 Sarwan Mahto as with regard to alleged recovery of gun licence by them would not inspire confidence, especially when they have failed to explain the actual place of recovery of such gun licence. He has also highlighted that the crucial documentary evidence Ext.10 though being a carbon copy and yet having the original thumb impression of P.Ws. 4 and 5 and the signature of P.W.2 and P.W.6 would create a grave doubt as with regard to genuineness of not only the document in question but the whole story of production of gun licence in the manner indicated by the prosecution. He has also additionally submitted that there are several other conflicting circumstances in the prosecution case which having been not explained by the prosecution, its resultant benefit had to be given to the appellant whose conviction by the trial court has been recorded merely on the basis of sole circumstances i.e. the recovery of his gun licence. 5. Per contra, Mr. Shiwesh Ch. 5. Per contra, Mr. Shiwesh Ch. Mishra, learned A.P.P. while defending the impugned judgment and the findings recorded therein has submitted that true it is that the identification of the appellant and other co-accused on account of previous publication of their photographs in a newspaper at the instance of the Officer In-charge of Khadda Police Station has become doubtful but then the fact that soon after the occurrence and in fact well in course of recording of the fardbeyan the gun licence of the appellant had been recovered and produced before the Investigating Officer that by itself would be a fitting circumstance to connect the appellant in the said occurrence. He has also submitted that once the Investigating Officer, examined as a court witness no.1, Mehndi Abbas, had made it clear in his deposition that Ext.10 was the carbon copy which was prepared by him in the same transaction of the original, its authenticity cannot be doubted much less could weaken the prosecution case. He has further submitted that the case of three other co-accused who have been acquitted stands on a different footing as against the appellant whose complicity gets virtually sealed and confirmed on account of recovery of gun licence. He has accordingly summed up his submission that the impugned judgment of the trial court would require no interference and in fact is fit to be confirmed. 6. In order to appreciate the aforementioned submission it would be necessary for us to have an eye bird view of the evidence adduced by the prosecution. In this case though the prosecution has examined as many as 17 witnesses, P.W.1 Hari Shankar Singh, P.W.3 Sita Sah Gour, P.W.5 Sarwan Mahto, P.W.6 Thakur Yadav, P.W.11 Bishuni Yadav and P.W.16 Mahadeo Singh are the formal/ tendered witnesses. It is true that P.W.2 Tapsi Bhagat and P.W.6 Thakur Yadav are the two witnesses who have been brought by the prosecution to support the story of production of gun licence recovered by P.W.4 Rudal Yadav and P.W.5 Sarwan Mahto but then they too remained in the realm of only formal witness. It is true that P.W.2 Tapsi Bhagat and P.W.6 Thakur Yadav are the two witnesses who have been brought by the prosecution to support the story of production of gun licence recovered by P.W.4 Rudal Yadav and P.W.5 Sarwan Mahto but then they too remained in the realm of only formal witness. The material witnesses, therefore, by the prosecution examined are P.W.4 Rudal Yadav, P.W.7 Panchu Yadav, P.W.8 Ramchandar yadav (informant), P.W.9 Ram Kuer Yadav, P.W.10 Bhulai Yadav who have definitely claimed to support the first part of the prosecution case as with regard to commission of the offence under section 396 I.P.C. leading to dacoity and murder of Bishwanath Yadav in course of such dacoity. They, however, have not been able to sustain the issue of identification of the accused persons, inasmuch as the trial court having analyzed their evidence in the light of evidence of DW1- Vijoy Mishra Exts. A, B, C and D read with the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.17 Bhardwaj Pandey, the Officer Incharge of Khadda Police Station, has come to a finding that as the photographs of the appellant and other co-accused were published in Dainik Jagaran before holding of the T.I.P., their subsequent identification made by P.Ws. 8, 9 and 10 on 20.10.1982, a day later after 19.10.1982 on which they were produced in court would not inspire confidence. 7. In that view of the matter, the prosecution evidence as with regard to identification having been disbelieved by the trial court the crucial witnesses which now remain against the appellant are P.W.4 Rudal Yadav, P.W.5 Sarwan Mahto and Court witness no.1 Mehndi Abbas or the two supporting witnesses being Tapsi Bhagat and Thakur Yadav, P.Ws. 2 and 6 respectively. 8. In order to complete the narration of rest of the witnesses it has to be only recorded that P.W.12 is Dr. Sahdeo Singh who had conducted postmortem on the person of the deceased at 4.30 P.M. on 20.7.1982 and had found gun shot injury on the person of the deceased. P.W.13 Inher Alam is the Magistrate in whose presence T.I.P. was conducted on 20.12.1982. P.W.14 is Dr. Bishwanath Prasad Sinha who had examined the injury of one Sita Gorh. P.W.15 Kuer Janardan Singh is the second Investigating Officer who had submitted the charge sheet. P.W.13 Inher Alam is the Magistrate in whose presence T.I.P. was conducted on 20.12.1982. P.W.14 is Dr. Bishwanath Prasad Sinha who had examined the injury of one Sita Gorh. P.W.15 Kuer Janardan Singh is the second Investigating Officer who had submitted the charge sheet. P.W.16 Mahadeo Singh is the constable who had produced the First Information Report lodged in Khadda Police Station as against the appellant and others and P.W.17 Bhardwaj Pandey is the Officer In-charge of Khadda Police Station. 9. The prosecution has also exhibited ten documents, namely, Ext.1 fardbeyan, Exts. 2 series signature of the witnesses on the search and seizure list, Ext.3 postmortem report, Exts.4 series injury reports, Ext.5 T.I.P. chart, Ext.6 formal F.I.R., Ext.7 dead body challan, Exts.8 sereis the copy of the F.I.R. of Khadda Police Station Case No. 41, 42, 44, 45, 46, 47 and 48 of 1982, Ext.9 seizure list and Ext.10 production list. 10. The prosecution in addition to the aforementioned exhibits had also produced material exhibits, Ext.1 being empty cartridge, Ext.2 gun licence of the appellant, Ext.3 recovery of a radio and Ext.4 pieces of iron. 11. The defence of the appellant being one of complete innocence and false implication, he had entered into leading his oral and documentary evidence and in support of his defence he had examined one Vijay Mishra, a photographer as D.W.1 and had also exhibited Ext.A, Dainik Jagaran newspaper, Ext.B negative of the photographs, Ext.B/1 enlarge photograph and Exts. C to C/3 negatives. Apart from the aforementioned evidence the court also had examined the first Investigating Officer, namely, Mehndi Abbas as sole court witness. 12. As already indicated above, the issue of identification has been decided by the trial court in favour of all accused. We have also considered the same and would find no error whatsoever so as to discuss the relevance of such evidence on the issue of identification. Suffice it to say that the T.I.P. of appellant and other co-accused (since acquitted) was held on 20.10.1982 whereas their photographs were published in Dainik Jagaran newspaper (Ext.A) on 22.7.1982 describing them to be wanted miscreants in connection with the dacoity case and thus their subsequent identification after being remanded in this case and produced in court on 19.10.1982 will have no meaning in the eye of law. Such T.I.P. looses all its significance and has been rightly disbelieved by the Trial Court. 13. Such T.I.P. looses all its significance and has been rightly disbelieved by the Trial Court. 13. The only issue which would really require a serious consideration is recovery of gun licence of the appellant and its production by P.W.4 and 5 before the Investigating Officer. It has to be kept in mind that the relevance of such recovery and production of gun licence could have significant bearing on the result of this case, inasmuch as under sections 6 and 7 of the Evidence Act, such facts which have bearing on cause or effect on an issue becomes relevant if the same also forms part of the same transaction. Here in this case if the prosecution can successfully prove that gun licence of the appellant who was suspected to be also one of the member of dacoit was found either at the place of occurrence or even the close vicinity thereof, its relevance in terms of sections 6 and 7 of the Evidence Act cannot be minimised and/or marginalized. 14. It is, however, on record that P.W.4 had claimed in his examination-in-chief that after coming to know of the occurrence which had taken place in the mid night, he had gone to the place of occurrence i.e. the house of Panchu Yadav and when he had also come to know that Panchu Yadav and his son Bishwanath Yadav having been removed to Bagaha for their treatment, had led to death of Bishwanath Yadav, he alongwith P.W.5 had started for Bagaha. It is his evidence in court in conformity with his evidence before the police that while he was on way to Bagaha and he had reached near the field of one Bachcha Babu he had found not only the grass of such field to be totally trampled but had also found a radio cover as also a gun licence in the name of the appellant and a few iron pieces whom he had collected and had gone back to the house of Panchu Yadav where he had handed over to the Police Officer (C.W.1). He has also supported that the production memo was prepared by C.W.1 on which his thumb impression alongwith the thumb impression of P.W.5 as well as signature of P.W.2 and P.W.6 were obtained. He has also supported that the production memo was prepared by C.W.1 on which his thumb impression alongwith the thumb impression of P.W.5 as well as signature of P.W.2 and P.W.6 were obtained. In his cross-examination, however, he had admitted that he did not show the place to the Investigating Officer fromwhere he had recovered such gun licence of the appellant and other articles for which production memo was prepared by the Investigating officer. This part of his evidence in fact would give rise to a crucial question, inasmuch as even when P.W.5 Sarwan Mahto was tendered by the prosecution, in his cross-examination he too had fairly accepted in his cross examination that he too had not shown the place from where gun licence was recovered. Surprisingly the I.O., C.W.1 also in his evidence has accepted that even though he had prepared the production memo and had obtained signature of P.W.2 and P.W.8 as also thumb impression of P.Ws. 4 and 5 but he did not make any effort as with regard to finding out the place from where P.Ws. 4 and 5 had claimed to have recovered gun licence of the appellant and other articles. 15. This deliberate lapse of Investigating Officer becomes further obvious on the basis of connected material on record, inasmuch the production memo proved by him which has been exhibited as Ext.10 is the carbon copy but surprisingly on such carbon copy the thumb impression of P.Ws. 4 and 5 is found and so is the original signature of P.W.2 and P.W.6. There would be no difficulty in accepting the submission of the learned A.P.P. that a carbon copy of a document which was prepared in the same transaction with the original will be admissible in evidence, but then its authenticity in absence of original will have to be proved like any primary evidence. Here in this case when the carbon copy is bearing original thumb impression and the signature of P.Ws. 2, 4, 5 and 6 it would be difficult for this Court to rely on such document i.e. Exhibit-10. 16. In the aforesaid background of the entire evidence led by the prosecution is examined there is nothing on record to show where actually is the field of Bachcha Baboo from where the gun licence was recovered by PW4 and PW5. 2, 4, 5 and 6 it would be difficult for this Court to rely on such document i.e. Exhibit-10. 16. In the aforesaid background of the entire evidence led by the prosecution is examined there is nothing on record to show where actually is the field of Bachcha Baboo from where the gun licence was recovered by PW4 and PW5. Thus it cannot be said that the links required to be connected for holding the appellant guilty has been successfully established by the prosecution. P.Ws. 4 and 5 on their own showing, were going to Bagaha to see condition of deceased and Panchu Yadav and if such recovery was made by them anywhere in the way, that would not facilitate the prosecution to extend its case to implicate appellant even if such gun licence of appellant was recovered from a far off place. The complicity of the appellant based on recovery of his gun licence could have been established if the prosecution could have led satisfactory evidence of recovery and production of gun licence either from the house of Panchu Yadav where the offence of dacoity with murder was committed or at least in or around the house of Panchu Yadav so as to attract and/or make the provisions of Sections 6 and 7 of the Evidence Act applicable. 17. This part of crucial omission on the part of the Investigating Officer to investigate the case properly has a significant bearing on the issue of involvement of the appellant inasmuch as it was the case of prosecution that in course of such dacoity large number of goods were said to have been taken away by the dacoits and thus if some of the goods, such as radio cover though not put on T.I.P. was recovered, it was the primal duty of the Investigating Officer at least to go to the place of alleged recovery as suggested by P.W.4 to find out further traces of the occurrence and also recovery of further incriminating materials for unfolding the prosecution case. This having been not done the Investigating Officer had virtually closed the prosecution case abruptly despite there being a vital link available to him and for such fatal error the appellant cannot be punished on mere ipse dixit. 18. This having been not done the Investigating Officer had virtually closed the prosecution case abruptly despite there being a vital link available to him and for such fatal error the appellant cannot be punished on mere ipse dixit. 18. As a matter of fact such lapse on the part of the Investigating Officer, court witness no.1, is also well apparent from the further fact that even when he could find out the gun of the appellant said to have been seized by Khadda Police and he himself had also recovered an empty cartridge from the place of occurrence, yet nothing was done by him to get the case further investigated from the point of view as to whether the gun of the licenced appellant was used on the date of occurrence and as to whether the empty cartridge recovered from P.O. was fired from that very gun. Admittedly the Investigating Officer had neither sent the gun nor cartridge to the Ballistic expert and had left the matter in lurch while conducting investigation in a half hearted manner. Such conduct of the Investigating Officer would, therefore, pose a serious question as with regard to credibility of the entire prosecution case, inasmuch as there are also materials to show in the evidence of official PW5 that he had acted in league with police officials of Khadda Police Station in not only apprehending the appellant and four other co-accused persons but also getting them remanded in the present case on their confession. 19. In this regard there is also no explanation as to how the I.O. (C.W.-1) had reached at the place of occurrence on hearing rumour of the occurrence at the police station and how after having recorded the fardbeyan had sent the same to the police station for its being recorded as a formal F.I.R.? he infact having failed to explain the person through him had sent his fardbayan to P.S. his evidence in court that he could give the case number on the seizure list and production list because the Officer In-charge himself had come to the place of occurrence is absolutely unbelievable story which has not at all been corroborated by any other witness by the prosecution in a satisfactory manner. This Court will, therefore, have no difficulty in accepting that part of the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that as a matter of fact after the I.O., the C.W.-1 Police Officer had come to know of the arrest of the appellant and few other persons in Khadda Police Station as also recovery of fire arm from the appellant, that present prosecution case was sought to be developed by also bringing them in the fold by filling up their names in the present case which was initially lodged against unknown persons. Thus, the suspicion alone which had been artificially created by the I.O. in league with fellow colleague of Khadda Police Station had ultimately led to remand of the appellant and others in this case and their production after three months on 19.10.1982 followed by the T.I.P. on 20.10.1982 after coming to know of seizure of gun of appellant in Khadda Police Station and planting of his gun licence in the present case are of some of the links which would go to show that the prosecution had deliberately weaved the story of the appellant and others being also part of the occurrence in question. 20. It is well settled that the suspicion howsoever strong cannot take place of the proof of guilt and therefore, in this case mere recovery of gun licence of the appellant cannot be a circumstance for holding the appellant guilty for offence under section 396 I.P.C. specially when there is no other connecting circumstances on the basis of which the appellant’s role can be said to be there in the occurrence in question and as such, when the actual place of recovery of gun licence of the appellant has not been established by the prosecution, the appellant will be at least entitled for benefit of doubt. 21. That being so, this appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment of conviction is set aside. The appellant is on bail and he would accordingly stand discharged from the liability of his bail bonds. Appeal allowed.